beta
Text
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
Reasons
1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, do not conflict between the parties, or are significant in this court:
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for the payment of KRW 2,3610,00 (the total sum of KRW 310,000 and KRW 23,300,000) and damages for delay. On May 24, 2005, the above court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff that “the Defendant jointly and severally pays to the Plaintiff KRW 310,00 and the damages for delay.”
B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above judgment and appealed against the part against the Plaintiff as 2005Na3650, and the above court accepted part of the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 20, 2005 and revoked the part against the Plaintiff as to wages of 9.60,00 won and damages for delay, and ordered the Defendants to pay the said money jointly and severally, and dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s appeal.
C. The Plaintiff re-appealed to the above appellate judgment and appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2005Da72126, but the Supreme Court rendered a dismissal judgment on March 10, 2006.
Then, the Plaintiff filed a suit for retrial against the instant judgment No. 2005Na3650 on November 3, 2011. However, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing a suit for retrial on the ground that “No evidence was found to prove that the Defendant was guilty of forging the employment contract as evidence of the said judgment, or that there was no evidence to prove that the Defendant could not have rendered a final judgment of conviction for reasons other than lack of evidence,” and the Plaintiff again appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2012Da29687, but the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on June 14, 2012.
E. In other words, the Plaintiff again filed a lawsuit for re-deliberation against the instant judgment No. 2011Na25, which was rendered by this court, but the said court rendered the said judgment on May 2, 2014.